Resistance is Futile...

Well, well, well. Finally we find out what really happened that night in Pakistan when Mr. bin Laden was killed. He was unarmed and helpless after being assaulted by American soldiers who shot him at point blank range for no apparent reason other than simply killing him. And since this information was released, all kinds of justifications have been offered by the White House about why bin Laden was killed rather than taken captive. Personally I believe this man definitely deserved to die, but this is beside the point. More important is the fact that he could have turned over a lot of interesting information. After all he was involved with the US government in the past as a CIA agent (we don't know exactly what his ties to the US government were, and now we will never know). He was also a well known member of a royal family and had links with many other officials in governments of Arab states all around the Middle-East, particularly Pakistan, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. I personally believe he was killed simply because he carried sensitive information the US government did not want divulged during any trial or court proceedings.
Another interesting detail is the fact that White House spokespersons have said Mr. bin Laden was shot because "he resisted". But he did not have a weapon. How can an unarmed man resist a group of trained soldiers to the extent that they have to actually shoot him in the head?! The spokesperson said that "guns are not necessary for resistance". This is certainly true. But does this mean that government employees have a right to kill anyone who resists them? Personally I was recently in trouble with the police here in the United States and I resisted their aggressive behaviour toward me (although they would say I was the one being aggressive, but we live in a police state so you can choose who to believe). I was totally unarmed and yet somehow the police found a way to subdue me without shooting me in the head! How was this possible?! Could this mean that Navy SEALs are less competent than common street cops (i.e. just thugs in uniforms)? America is a country full of contradictions...

None other than Democratic Senator Russell D. Feingold once said: "Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."
And this comes from a pro-civil liberites DEMOCRAT!